User:TLRX/Geobotanical prospecting/NeuroBlast100 Peer Review

General info
User:TLRX
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:TLRX/Geobotanical prospecting
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Geobotanical prospecting

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I really like the addition to the lead section. I think it is very clear and concise and does great job of explaining the concept of geobotanical prospecting to anyone with no prior knowledge of the filed.

The section titled "Underlying Principles", seems slightly redundant with respect to the information being stated. It lacks the clarity to demonstrate the underlying principle of geobotanical prospecting for the purpose of this article. This section also seems to heavily draw from one particular source. Slight alterations to the text comprising of better transitional sentences, some background and biological links and referencing multiple sources will greatly improve the quality of this section.

The "Techniques" section is well written, has good flow and clarity in mentioning the various techniques used for the purpose of geobotanical prospecting and their underlying g principles. It makes great use of multiple references throughout the section and maintains a neutral tone by not focusing too heavily/lightly on any topic or portraying a supremist/reductionist point of view.

The "Applications and examples" provides a good insight into the applications of geobotanical prospecting in determining mineral compositions in the nearby land, in this case copper. That being said, there are a few grammatical errors and the write-up lacks clarity and proper transitions between sentences. Similar to the "Underlying Principles," the language seems slightly redundant at times. Apart from that I really like to section and suggestions for other examples that can be included.

The last two sections titled "Advantages and Benefits" and "Limitations" concisely encompass the essence of their titles. However, a little mor elaboration along the lines of the points already mentioned would aid the clarity and purpose of these sections. Great and balanced used of references had been made thorough this sections.

The references used are mostly recent and reliable. They comprise of a good deal of reliable primary and secondary sources.

In conclusion, the article draft presented on Geobotanical Prospecting is well written and covers most bases while providing a neutral and well references stand. Some critiques, as mentioned above include improvements to the the clarity, grammar and language and coverage of content (especially the last two sections).